Prev: DocFetcher - java-based desktop searcher
Next: alt.comp.freeware links at Fri Jan 15 21:20:02 2010
From: mike on 14 Jan 2010 07:31
What Good is a Portable App that Won't Run?

I just tried to run the portable version of docfetcher.
Sorry, Charlie, you need version blah, blah, blah of java.

Well, I'm on somebody else's computer. They don't have it.
They won't let me update it. Would you let someone load stuff
on your computer?

Isn't the whole idea of a portable app the ability to run
it on any machine without leaving anything behind? Oh yes,
by all means, I want the yahoo toolbar on someone else's machine.

Portable apps should run on VANILLA installs of an OS with NO
ASSUMPTIONS about what's there or requirements to add anything.
You need capability? Put it in the portable app.
From: JB on 14 Jan 2010 08:27
mike wrote:

> What Good is a Portable App that Won't Run?
>
> I just tried to run the portable version of docfetcher.
> Sorry, Charlie, you need version blah, blah, blah of java.
>
> Well, I'm on somebody else's computer. They don't have it.
> They won't let me update it. Would you let someone load stuff
> on your computer?
>
> Isn't the whole idea of a portable app the ability to run
> it on any machine without leaving anything behind? Oh yes,

Well, no... not really. Running on as wide a range of machines as
possible is certainly a GoodThing(tm), but there absolutely has to
be some limitations. You happened to run up against one of them for
this particular app.

/me shrugs


> by all means, I want the yahoo toolbar on someone else's machine.
>
> Portable apps should run on VANILLA installs of an OS with NO
> ASSUMPTIONS about what's there or requirements to add anything.
> You need capability? Put it in the portable app.

On vanilla installs of *which* OS? Mac, Windows, and Linux
inclusive? Do you still support DOS 5 and Windows 3.11? 95/98? What
about things like .NET? It's certainly part of the vanilla install
of *some* modern, widely used operating systems. It's an additional
installation to others. So does this mean portable applications
can't be written using that framework? That would be odd, given
the fact that part of the reason .NET exists is promoting
portability (in a different but relevant sense). Ironically, Java
is a similar tool. ;)

No, being "portable" really doesn't mean guaranteed to run on any
given machine. What it *does* mean is that on the machines where it
does run, it won't require an installation. Period. It's no
different than any other software, save for this single issue. It
can have any sort of system requirements any other piece of
software can have, it's just easier to tote from one machine to the
other.

And the "leave anything behind" part?

Portability has nothing at all to do with not leaving traces. A
particular application *may* have that feature as a designed-in
goal, but it's absolutely not a prerequisite to portability.

From: JB on 14 Jan 2010 08:34
Yrrah wrote:

> I think that portable software should not require JAVA or .NET at all.
> But I never even download JAVA or .NET requiring software, 'portable'
> or not.

Actually, in the case of Java especially, requiring it increases
portability considerably. How else could you write one application
that would run on Windows, Mac, and *nix boxes?

How much more portable can you get?

Hell, even portable software that carries it's own OS along isn't
ultimately portable. That liveCD gots its own requirements too,
ya'know. ;)

From: mike on 14 Jan 2010 09:28
JB wrote:
> mike wrote:
>
>> What Good is a Portable App that Won't Run?
>>
>> I just tried to run the portable version of docfetcher.
>> Sorry, Charlie, you need version blah, blah, blah of java.
>>
>> Well, I'm on somebody else's computer. They don't have it.
>> They won't let me update it. Would you let someone load stuff
>> on your computer?
>>
>> Isn't the whole idea of a portable app the ability to run
>> it on any machine without leaving anything behind? Oh yes,
>
> Well, no... not really. Running on as wide a range of machines as
> possible is certainly a GoodThing(tm), but there absolutely has to
> be some limitations. You happened to run up against one of them for
> this particular app.
>
> /me shrugs
>
>
>> by all means, I want the yahoo toolbar on someone else's machine.
>>
>> Portable apps should run on VANILLA installs of an OS with NO
>> ASSUMPTIONS about what's there or requirements to add anything.
>> You need capability? Put it in the portable app.
>
> On vanilla installs of *which* OS? Mac, Windows, and Linux
> inclusive? Do you still support DOS 5 and Windows 3.11? 95/98? What
> about things like .NET? It's certainly part of the vanilla install
> of *some* modern, widely used operating systems. It's an additional
> installation to others. So does this mean portable applications
> can't be written using that framework? That would be odd, given
> the fact that part of the reason .NET exists is promoting
> portability (in a different but relevant sense). Ironically, Java
> is a similar tool. ;)
>
> No, being "portable" really doesn't mean guaranteed to run on any
> given machine. What it *does* mean is that on the machines where it
> does run, it won't require an installation. Period. It's no
> different than any other software, save for this single issue. It
> can have any sort of system requirements any other piece of
> software can have, it's just easier to tote from one machine to the
> other.
>
> And the "leave anything behind" part?
>
> Portability has nothing at all to do with not leaving traces. A
> particular application *may* have that feature as a designed-in
> goal, but it's absolutely not a prerequisite to portability.
>
Within limits. Leaving behind JAVA seems excessive.
If a program says it runs on XP, it should run on XP.
Yes, the info says it's written in java. I'm not complaining about that.
My only question was, "what good is a portable app that ain't portable?"
If it needs more than XP to run on XP, it shouldn't be called portable.
Maybe we need a new term. How about "bloatable"?

I don't remember one program I tried to install.
Sorry, charlie, you need an updated installer. Did that.
Sorry charlie, you need dotnet. Did that.
Sorry charlie you need IE6. Did that.
Finally, I could install the program.
If I'd had a dialup modem, I'd have been outa luck.
Many, Many megabytes more bloat to install a simple bit of freeware.
If all that had been listed in the requirements, I'd have skipped the
whole thing. Ended up deleting the POS anyway. Bloatware is outa control.

In this case with DocFetcher, it don't matter. When they fix it so it
will index
ALL pdf files, I'll try it again.

Skipped: No permission to extract text. Yes, I read the bug sheet.
The files are not encrypted, passworded or images and permissions are
wide open. I can cut text out of them in foxit and paste into notepad.

For .xls files it's
skipped: parser error.

But it looks like a very nice program that behaves the way I want.
I can live without portability.
If only it would index all the files.
From: Taf® on 14 Jan 2010 09:49
On 14/01/2010 13:31:43... mike (spamme0(a)go.com) wrote :
> What Good is a Portable App that Won't Run?
>
> I just tried to run the portable version of docfetcher.
> Sorry, Charlie, you need version blah, blah, blah of java.
>
> Well, I'm on somebody else's computer. They don't have it.
> They won't let me update it. Would you let someone load stuff
> on your computer?
>
> Isn't the whole idea of a portable app the ability to run
> it on any machine without leaving anything behind? Oh yes,
> by all means, I want the yahoo toolbar on someone else's machine.
>
> Portable apps should run on VANILLA installs of an OS with NO
> ASSUMPTIONS about what's there or requirements to add anything.
> You need capability? Put it in the portable app.

Yeah, this is because someone is playing alot with "portable" word.
And it is also our point of view (have a look here):
http://www.winpenpack.com/main/page.php?39
(English flag on top-left corner)

so, if You want, You could submit this *Docfetcher* in the forum for a
"real portable version".
see here how to proceed:
http://www.winpenpack.com/main/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?31808.0#post_31821

hope this helps! ;-)

--
ByE bYe By Taf� - WinPenPack Team Member - FREE USB SW -
http://www.winpenpack.com
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
R: Perche' disturba il flusso logico della lettura
D: Perche' "postare sopra" e' tanto fastidioso?


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: DocFetcher - java-based desktop searcher
Next: alt.comp.freeware links at Fri Jan 15 21:20:02 2010